(24-04-2014 06:10 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote: That might characterize it IF gays were the only ones who could participate in ssm. But no, same-sex marriage creates a compete shift in the meaning of marriage.

Lmfao stfu you've got to be kidding me right now. What if we legalize ssm and then everybody starts getting 'gay married' even the straight people???

Quote:Many people still see "marriage" in "same-sex marriage" and see it as the [fail]intimite[/fail], romantic, monogomous type of relationship, but that can change, too, and is much more likely to fall out of the definition as a result of ssm.

Much more likely is a bold assertion Becca Bigot do you have any proof?

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.

(24-04-2014 03:00 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote: Actually, no, many ssm supporters would argue that marriage is needed to help them procreate through in vitro or surrogacy. In vitro is publicly funded in some countries.

Case in point...

I've never even seen a single person express a desire for or support for SSM for the express purpose of in vitro fertilization, which to my knowledge is utilized overwhelmingly by heterosexual couples.

Even if it was true, why would this be a problem for SSM over HSM?

"In vitro is publicly funded in some countries."

Once again, your point is? Even if it was true, why would this be a problem for SSM over HSM?

So is grasping at irrational straws to prop up your bigotry an acquired skill, or are you just stupid?

If you follow the conversation, I was responding to the claim that ssm = no procreation, which is clearly not the case. And when in vitro or surrogracy is used for gay couples, it does necessarily deny that child the possibility of being born to a mother and father, so there is a difference between that compared to hsm cases of the same.

(24-04-2014 06:10 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote: That might characterize it IF gays were the only ones who could participate in ssm. But no, same-sex marriage creates a compete shift in the meaning of marriage.

Lmfao stfu you've got to be kidding me right now. What if we legalize ssm and then everybody starts getting 'gay married' even the straight people???

Quote:Many people still see "marriage" in "same-sex marriage" and see it as the [fail]intimite[/fail], romantic, monogomous type of relationship, but that can change, too, and is much more likely to fall out of the definition as a result of ssm.

Much more likely is a bold assertion Becca Bigot do you have any proof?

Why not straights getting ss married??? There are already hetero marriages of convenience, same-sex marriage very likely makes it much easier for heterosexuals to form a convenience marriage.

Proof that people will separate the romance, intimacy, and monogamy out of their idea of marriage: it's already happening and has been seen frequently in arguments FOR ssm. The phrase "it's just a contract between two people" has been used countless times to support the idea of same-sex marriage.

(24-04-2014 06:16 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote: Lmfao stfu you've got to be kidding me right now. What if we legalize ssm and then everybody starts getting 'gay married' even the straight people???

Much more likely is a bold assertion Becca Bigot do you have any proof?

Why not straights getting ss married??? There are already hetero marriages of convenience, same-sex marriage very likely makes it much easier for heterosexuals to form a convenience marriage.

Proof that people will separate the romance, intimacy, and monogamy out of their idea of marriage: it's already happening and has been seen frequently in arguments FOR ssm. The phrase "it's just a contract between two people" has been used countless times to support the idea of same-sex marriage.

Romance and intimacy are very recent concepts associated with marriage.

Marriage has historically been about practical matters.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(24-04-2014 06:16 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote: Lmfao stfu you've got to be kidding me right now. What if we legalize ssm and then everybody starts getting 'gay married' even the straight people???

Much more likely is a bold assertion Becca Bigot do you have any proof?

Why not straights getting ss married??? There are already hetero marriages of convenience, same-sex marriage very likely makes it much easier for heterosexuals to form a convenience marriage.

Quote:Proof that people will separate the romance, intimacy, and monogamy out of their idea of marriage: it's already happening and has been seen frequently in arguments FOR ssm. The phrase "it's just a contract between two people" has been used countless times to support the idea of same-sex marriage.

Ummm I'm sorry I must have missed the evidence that intimacy, romance, and monogamy would disappear from marriage as a result of ssm. Did you have proof for that? I haven't seen any.

As a side note, I haven't seen any proof that monogamy is beneficial to marriage.

*and yes I made the meme just for you

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.

Lol. I have seen bigoted arguments being made before that normalising homosexual behaviour will cause the behaviour to spread due to its increased legitimacy, turning and corrupting our once clean and pure youth. I haven't seen it taken to the extreme of "If we legislate for marriage equality all the straight people will get gay married". I have to share this one.

You know... right... that... when gay marriage is legally recognised... that it means gays can get married, not that straights must gay marry... right? You... know that right? You know that you still get to choose who you marry?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.

(24-04-2014 06:58 AM)Hafnof Wrote: Lol. I have seen bigoted arguments being made before that normalising homosexual behaviour will cause the behaviour to spread due to its increased legitimacy, turning and corrupting our once clean and pure youth. I haven't seen it taken to the extreme of "If we legislate for marriage equality all the straight people will get gay married". I have to share this one.

You know... right... that... when gay marriage is legally recognised... that it means gays can get married, not that straights must gay marry... right? You... know that right? You know that you still get to choose who you marry?

Bahaha when it's finally legal everywhere I doubt anyone will be getting gay married. They'll just get married...to whoever.
Or Becca Bigot could be right and the entire world will get gay married.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.

(24-04-2014 06:58 AM)Hafnof Wrote: Lol. I have seen bigoted arguments being made before that normalising homosexual behaviour will cause the behaviour to spread due to its increased legitimacy, turning and corrupting our once clean and pure youth. I haven't seen it taken to the extreme of "If we legislate for marriage equality all the straight people will get gay married". I have to share this one.

You know... right... that... when gay marriage is legally recognised... that it means gays can get married, not that straights must gay marry... right? You... know that right? You know that you still get to choose who you marry?

It's surprising to you that people will get same-sex married if ssm is legalised? Think about it. Are there heterosexuals living in joint households with a platonic partner of the same sex? Of course there are.

This is one of the problems, the separation of the concept of marriage from that of sex and procreation. Sure, there are people who have formed families once the relationship with the coparent dissolved, and often enough those families are between platonic adults of the same sex. How long is it before adults simply marry for the economic benefits or convenience of marriage, keeping their sexual lives completely separate and independent?